! e Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov

37

White House Initiatives

White House Initiatives conduct targeted outreach and provide technical assistance to support 

student success within communities that are critical to increasing completion rates across the nation.

• White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Paci! c Islanders

• White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics 

• White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

• White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education

• White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans

• White House O" ce of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Website: http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/index.html

Request for Information

Request for Information, entitled “Promising and Practical Strategies to Increase Postsecondary 

Success,” requests submissions from institutions, states, systems of higher education, adult 

education providers, researchers, and other nonpro! t organizations regarding promising and 

practical strategies, practices, programs and activities that contribute to increased rates of 

postsecondary success. # e results of the ! rst round of submissions received by April 30, 2012 can 

be viewed at http://www.ed.gov/college-completion. # e Federal Register Second Notice Request 

for Information was published on Sept. 12, 2012. # e review of the second round submissions 

will include those received by Nov. 30, 2012. For more information contact Frederick Winter 

(frederick.winter@ed.gov).
# is report was produced under U.S. Department of Education contract number ED-OPE-12-P-0031 with 

Isom Global Strategies. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations in this report does 

not imply endorsement by the U.S. government. # is publication also contains URLs for information, created 

and maintained by private organizations. # is information is provided for the reader’s convenience. # e U.S. 

Department of Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, 

or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of information or URLs does not re$ ect the 

importance of the organization, nor is it intended to endorse information, products, services or any views expressed. 

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan 

Secretary of Education 

Martha Kanter

Under Secretary of Education 

O! ce of Postsecondary Education

David Bergeron

Acting Assistant Secretary 

# is report is in the public domain, except for the cover photograph, which is used with permission. 

Authorization to reproduce this report in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this report 

is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, O" ce of Postsecondary Education, 

Evidence Meets Practice: Institutional Strategies to Increase College Completion, Washington, D.C., 2012. 

To order copies of this report, 

Write to: ED Pubs, Education Publication Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, 

Alexandria, VA 22304; 

or fax your request to: 703-605-6794; 

or e-mail your requests to: edpubs@edpubs.ed.gov; 

or call in your request toll free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). # ose who use a telecommunication 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-877-576-7734. If 877 service is not yet 

available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 or 1-800-USA-LEARN (TTY: 1-800-437-0833); 

or order online at: http://www.edpubs.gov. 

# is report is also available on the Department’s website at: http://www.ed.gov and 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/o" ces/list/ope/index.html

November 2012 
35

Appendix 3: Selected 

Department of Education 

Resources

The Department of Education offers many resources in addition 

to this guide that help institutions better understand and address 

the challenges of improving college completion, including grant 

opportunities to fund promising programs and research and data 

that evaluate and monitor practices and institutional progress. 

Below are some of the Department of Education’s grant programs, 

research and statistics offi ces, White House initiatives as well as 

websites and publications that inform completion efforts.

Offi ce of Postsecondary Education Grant Programs

Student Support Services program competitively awards funds to institutions of higher education 

to provide opportunities for academic development, assist students with basic college requirements, 

and motivate students toward the successful completion of their postsecondary education. Activities 

include academic tutoring, assistance with course selection and ! nancial aid applications, mentoring, 

! nancial literacy education, and individualized personal, academic, and career counseling.

Webssite: http://www.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/index.html

Strengthening Institutions Program helps eligible institutions become self‐su"cient and expand their 

capacity to serve low‐income students by providing competitive funds to improve and strengthen the 

academic quality, institutional management, and ! scal stability of eligible institutions. Activities may 

include student service programs intended to improve academic success, such as innovative, customized, 

instruction courses designed to help retain and advance students rapidly into core courses that may 

include developmental education and English language instruction, and through program completion.

Website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/iduestitle3a/index.html
1

Introduction

# is Evidence Meets Practice guide is a summary of the lessons learned at the Evidence‐Action‐

Innovation College Completion Symposium convened by the U.S. Department of Education on Jan. 

30, 2012. # ese ! ndings emerged from conversations among researchers, postsecondary education 

practitioners, and policy experts. # e institutional examples cited were either the focus of the 

research or mentioned during the round table discussions and/or large group report outs.

The National Imperative—Meeting the 2020 Goal 

In February 2009, in an address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama posed a vision for 

the United States that has caught national attention and momentum: “By 2020, America will once 

again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” According to the Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) most recent data on the percentage of 

25–34 year olds who have an associate degree or higher, the U.S. is number 14 among the 37 nations 

represented, at 42 percent (OECD, 2012). To achieve the president’s 2020 goal, the nation needs 10 

million additional college graduates from community colleges, four‐year colleges, and universities. 

If current trends continue, there will be 2 million more graduates by 2020—8 million short of our 

goal. # is is an aggressive mandate for postsecondary education in the midst of deep and pervasive 

challenges. It is the role of institutions, states, the federal government, and all postsecondary 

education stakeholders to address the challenges and collaborate to achieve this goal.
33

Appendix 2: Discussion Guide 

Conversations at the institutional level will assist in discerning the 

most relevant or promising approaches for different campuses. 

Senior leaders and other key personnel can convene to discuss the 

strategies presented in this guide as well as explore other strategies 

that their institution can implement in each of these areas to 

advance student success. The questions below are intended to 

serve as starting points for such conversations.

Integrating and Sustaining Student Supports

• How are individual support programs integrated into an overall systemic plan?

• Since research indicates that the positive impacts of support programs often dissipate without 

follow‐up programming, how can your institution develop a systemic model that integrates 

support throughout a student’s enrollment?

• Are there programs or initiatives on your campus that can be scaled to provide opportunities for 

greater numbers of students?

• What can senior leaders do to drive systemic change and empower those across campus to 

champion student success?

• How and to what extent is your institution’s unique mission and history re$ ected in your 

student support programs and in your overall campuswide plan?

Strategy 1: Transform Developmental Education

• How can developmental courses be transformed to maximize student success?

• Are there ways to accelerate student completion of developmental coursework?

• Would upward placement work as an e&ective strategy on your campus?

• What approaches are used or can be used for students who are enrolled in developmental 

courses to promote their sense of being “authentic” college students?
3

strategies, resources, and technical assistance tools that promote access, quality, and completion for adult students 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2012). On Jan. 30, 2012, Secretary Duncan addressed the Evidence‐ActionInnovation College Completion Symposium, which convened leading researchers, successful practitioners, 

and policy experts (see list in Appendix 1) for a day of engaged dialogue about what institutions can do to 

increase college completion. # ey came with a singular mission: to consider what works and what does not work. 

# eir task was to integrate evidence with practice. Although there are myriad forces that contribute to college 

completion, the focus of their agenda was on student supports, including bridge programs, learning communities, 

developmental education, and advising, coaching, and mentoring. # e evidence presented by the researchers 

was vetted in rich roundtable discussions with practitioners, other researchers, and policy experts identifying how 

practice and research inform each other, resulting in a deeper understanding of what really matters for students. 

# is Evidence Meets Practice guide is a summary of the major lessons learned through their interchange.

Findings

Sustained. Integrated. Systemic. E&orts to promote student success must be integrated and 

sustained, rather than isolated or short-term. # roughout the symposium, these themes were 

repeated continually and from di&erent perspectives. Supporting students in achieving their goals 

requires intentionally implementing strategies and practices in an integrated and sustained way. 

# e overarching message was that sustained and integrated e& orts must originate from a systemic 

approach that ultimately drives the culture itself. Transformative change that has lasting results 

is rooted in a culture that is focused on student success. # e overall underpinning of this guide, 

therefore, is “Integrating and Sustaining Student Supports.” 

“When I led Chicago public schools, we were trying to signi!cantly increase 

graduation rates and make sure our graduates were going to college and ultimately 

completing. As we reallystarted to track the data, it was fascinating to me . ... We had

students with almost identical pro!les, very similar grades and very similar SAT 

[and] ACT scores, having radically di"erent outcomes with our local universities. 

Not like a 5–10 percent di"erence, but [for students with the] same pro!le, in 

one university 75 percent would graduate in !ve years and [in another university 

the !ve-year rate would be] 30 to 35 percent ... literally doubling the rate of the 

possibility of graduation. So, something di"erent was going on in the culture around 

support, around bridge programs, around mentoring that created an environment 

and a climate of structure that gave people who were absolutely at risk coming in 

much, much better odds for graduating.”

—Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education

Jan. 30, 2012, Evidence -Action- Innovation Symposium,Washington, D.C.
31

Department of Education Steering Committee

David Bergeron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning and Innovation, O"ce of 

Postsecondary Education

Archie Cubarrubia, Education Statistician, National Center for Education Statistics

Brandon Daniels, Education Research Analyst, O"ce of Postsecondary Education

Robert Gomez, Higher Education and Youth Liaison, O"ce of Communications and Outreach

Karen Gross, Senior Policy Advisor, O"ce of the Under Secretary

Sue Liu, Senior Policy Advisor, O"ce of Vocational and Adult Education

Ben Miller, Policy Advisor, O"ce of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

Rosemarie Nassif, Special Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education, O"ce of 

Postsecondary Education

KimOanh Nguyen‐Lam, International and Foreign Language Education Program Director, O"ce 

of Postsecondary Education

Jon O’Bergh, Senior Policy Advisor, O"ce of the Under Secretary

Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary, O" ce of Postsecondary Education

Steve Pappas, Senior Policy Advisor, O"ce of Postsecondary Education

José Rico, Executive Director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics 

Debra Saunders‐White, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs, O"ce of 

Postsecondary Education

Alisha Scruggs, Management and Program Analyst, O"ce of Elementary and Secondary Education

Marcia Silverberg, Economist, Institute of Education Sciences

David Soo, Policy Analyst and Presidential Management Fellow, O" ce of Postsecondary Education

Brenda Wensil, Chief Customer Experience O" cer, Federal Student Aid

John Silvanus Wilson, Executive Director, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities

Facilitators

# omas Bailey, Professor, Community College Research Center, Columbia University

# omas Brock, Director, Young Adults and Postsecondary Education, MDRC

Bridget Terry Long, Professor, Harvard University

LaShawn Richburg‐Hayes, Deputy Director, Young Adults and Postsecondary Education, MDRC

Stefanie Schmidt, Education Statistician, Institute of Education Sciences

Marcia Silverberg, Economist, Institute of Education Sciences

Mary Visher, Senior Associate, Young Adults and Postsecondary Education, MDRC
5

Integrating and Sustaining 

Student Supports

While many student support programs hold promise for increasing 

student success and completion, the researchers and practitioners 

at the symposium concluded that the essential key to ensuring longterm impact is that programs must be integrated and sustained.

Good programs have often been designed as individual islands of student support that are not 

integrated with other resources for students. Short‐term programs—even those with evidence 

of success—often see their long‐term impact reduced when they are not followed by consistent 

interventions and embedded in an institutional culture that is directed toward student success. A 

coherent and systemic institutional plan to integrate and sustain programs is vital.

Such systemic change requires the participation and ownership of faculty and sta& across the 

institution, as well as leaders whose common vision drives a culture focused on student success. Rarely 

can an e&ort to signi! cantly improve success across an organization be initiated by a single unit.

To be truly e&ective, institutional plans 

must reach more than a small segment of 

the student body. Designing an institutional 

strategy around “boutique” programs that 

only reach a small number of students may 

impact their lives and success. However, 

if these programs are not scaled on an 

institutional level, there is little potential for 

increasing completion success for all students.

Integrated – Student supports (e.g., bridge 

programs, learning communities) should be 

integrated and mutually reinforcing.

Sustained – One-semester programs are 

not enough; sustained support should be 

provided through additional programs 

and continual interventions.

Systemic – Integrated and sustained 

supports must be rooted in a systemic plan 

focused on creating a culture that drives 

student success.
29

Appendix 1: Symposium 

Participants, Steering Committee, 

Facilitators, and Recorders

Participants: Researchers, Practitioners, and Policy Experts

David Arendale, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota

# omas Bailey, Director, Community College Research Center, Columbia University

Regina Bain, Regional Vice President, Posse Foundation

Earnestine Baker, Executive Director, Meyerho& Scholars Program, University of Maryland—

Baltimore County

Eric Bettinger, Associate Professor, Stanford University

Ari Blum, Chief Executive O"cer, InsideTrack

Karen Borglum, Assistant Vice President for Curriculum & Articulation, Valencia College

Debra Bragg, Professor & Director, O"ce of Community College Research and Leadership, 

University of Illinois

Tom Brock, Director, Young Adults and Postsecondary Education, MDRC

Luzelma Canales, Associate Dean of Community Engagement and Workforce Development, South 

Texas College

Elizabeth Child, Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, Trinity Washington University

Vickie Choitz, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Law and Social Policy 

Michelle Cooper, President, Institute for Higher Education Policy

Rebecca Cox, Associate Professor, Seton Hall University

Terrance Curran, Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management, University of North 

Carolina‐Wilmington

Chad Dull, Dean, Instructional Support Services, Western Technical College

Ricardo Estrada, Vice President for Education and Programs, Instituto Del Progreso Latino

Luis Ricardo Fraga, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement, University of Washington

Marybeth Gasman, Professor, University of Pennsylvania

Antoine Garibaldi, President, University of Detroit Mercy

Judy Gosch, Director of Curriculum and New Program Development, Pellissippi State Community College

Sylvia Hurtado, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles

Stan Jones, President, Complete College America

Donna Linderman, Director, ASAP, City University of New York

Bridget Terry Long, Professor, Harvard University
7

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

The Learning Communities Demonstration

A study of learning communities indicates that successful ones require institutional 

coordination and support.

Learning 

Community Traits

Learning communities consist of 

• Students enroll in two or more classes together

• Instructors collaborate on curriculum and in providing student support

• Course curricula are integrated (e.g. joint syllabi, assignments, etc.)

• Enhanced academic support and/or counseling is provided

Target Population First-time community college students who assess into developmental math, 

English, or reading classes

Where Community Colleges in Md., Fla., Texas, N.Y., and Calif. 

Cost ≈$500 per student

Outcomes Students who participated in the Kingsborough Community College (NY) 

program demonstrated effects six years after entering the program:

• Earned more credits

• Were more likely to persist

• Were 4.5 percent more likely to graduate

Source: Visher, et al., 2010.

Symposium Observations

“People want a silver bullet, but it takes a lot of integrated changes to 

have an impact.”

—Sylvia Hurtado, University of California, Los Angeles

“We need to move beyond a view of reform based on individual 

programs. We should be more ambitious about the types of reforms that 

combine various elements.”

—Tom Bailey, Columbia University
27

References

Bailey, T. (2008). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental 

education in community college. Columbia University, Community College Research Center 

Working Paper No. 14.

Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education Pays 2010: ! e Bene" ts of Higher Education for 

Individuals and Society. New York: College Board.

Bettinger, E. & Baker, R. (2011). ! e e&ects of student coaching in college: An evaluation of a randomized 

experiment in student mentoring. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No.16881.

Bragg, D. D., Baker, E. D., & Puryear, M. (2010, December). 2010 follow‐up of Community College 

of Denver FastStart program. Champaign: University of Illinois, O"ce of Community College 

Research and Leadership.

Carnevale, A., Smith, N. & Strohl, J. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements 

! rough 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

Edgecombe, N. (2011). Accelerating the Academic Achievement of Students Referred to Developmental 

Education. Columbia University, Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 30.

Hughes, K. L. & Scott‐Clayton, J. (2011). Assessing Developmental Assessment in Community Colleges. 

Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 19.

Jaggars, S. (2012). Acceleration research. Presentation at the National Center for Postsecondary Research 

Conference on Developmental Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Jenkins, D., Speroni, C., Bel! eld, C., Jaggars, S. S., & Edgecombe, N. (2010). A model for accelerating 

academic success of community college remedial English students: Is the Accelerated Learning Program 

(ALP) e& ective and a& ordable? Columbia University, Community College Research Center Working 

Paper No. 21.
Often assessments and placement tests do not precisely predict students’ developmental 

needs nor target specifi c areas in need of learning. Other measures of student readiness, such 

as high school grades and conversations with academic advisers, can offer additional and 

valuable information regarding the best strategy for a student whose score on the placement 

test is near the cutoff for developmental education.
25

Conclusion

# is Evidence Meets Practice guide is designed to spark conversation and action among postsecondary 

education leaders and practitioners. # e lessons shared throughout this guide rest on the 

fundamental underpinning identi! ed by the participants at the Evidence-Action-Innovation 

symposium that major increases in completion rates require an integrated, sustained and systemic 

approach. Isolated programmatic e& orts, no matter how well designed and implemented, do not 

have a lasting impact. # is guide identi! es four strategies for discussion and potential adoption 

and/or adaptation. It also encourages conversations about other strategies that work for students. 

Ultimately, it is meant to be a guide for discussion and, hopefully, action that leads to successful 

practice (see Appendix 2, “Discussion Guide”).

# e strategies advanced in this Evidence Meets Practice guide emerged from a gathering of more than 

55 leading researchers, practitioners, policy experts, and national organizations at the EvidenceAction-Innovation Symposium that the Department of Education convened on Jan.30, 2012. # e 

overarching theme that emerged from the symposium is that long-term improvements in student 

success can only be attained through integrated and sustained strategies and programs that are part of 

a systematic plan and, ultimately, are supported by an institutional culture. # e college president and 

other senior leaders are key to creating, sustaining, and institutionalizing such a culture. 

“For us to reach President Obama’s goal of leading the world in college 

graduation again by 2020, we cannot continue to do business as usual. 

We think that the good ideas are out there with you, not with us here in 

Washington. I feel a huge sense of urgency, but also opportunity, as I travel 

the country and talk to hundreds of folks at universities, colleges, community 

colleges, and elsewhere. # ere is a huge amount of creativity and innovation 

going on. We hope that we can reach students at universities with what is 

working to eventually dramatically change the prospects for graduation for 

the students coming out of our institutions.”

—Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education

Jan. 30, 2012, Evidence -Action- Innovation Symposium, Washington, D.C.
11

In considering these models, there is no one size ! ts all for institutions nor for students. Each institution 

needs to consider which strategies for transforming developmental education are most e&ective with 

its students and contribute to an integrated campuswide strategy for advancing student success.

Often assessments and placement tests do not precisely predict students’ developmental needs nor target 

speci! c areas in need of learning. Other measures of student readiness, such as high school grades and 

conversations with academic advisers, can o&er additional and valuable information regarding the best strategy 

for a student whose score on the placement test is near the cuto& for developmental education. Students should 

be informed of the high stakes associated with these tests and encouraged to prepare by focusing on important 

concepts. Assessments should be targeted and should identify the speci! c areas needing attention in order to be 

prepared for college work. For example, if a student is de! cient in certain math concepts, he or she can engage 

in developing skills on fractions and/or quadratic equations, rather than be deterred by a semester‐long math 

course that repeats other information the student already knows (Hughes and Scott‐Clayton, 2011).

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

The Texas Developmental Summer Bridge Study

Bridge programs can help provide structure and support to facilitate college entrance. 

Course-based programs may be more effective than freestanding programs.

Program Traits • Summer bridge programs held four to fi ve weeks prior to the start of college

• Accelerated instruction in developmental math, English, and/or reading 

(64–100 hrs.)

• Provided academic and student services support (e.g. tutors, labs, etc.)

• “College Knowledge” course (including study skills, making goals, and 

paying for college)

• $400 stipend for completers

Target Population Recent high school graduates—84 percent Hispanic, 62 percent female, 

and 61 percent low-income

Where Eight open access institutions in Texas (included six community colleges 

and two four-year schools )

Cost ≈ $800–$2,300 per student (varied by intensity and extent of implementation)

Outcomes • Summer bridge programs did not have an effect on the likelihood of enrollment

• Programs helped students pass college-level math (doubled) and writing 

(fi ve percent increase)

• Programs that were course-based were more effective than freestanding 

programs

Source: Wathington, et al., 2011. 
23

teachers are assigned and rewarded for teaching the gatekeeper and developmental courses that are so 

important for students in their early experiences of college.

Engaging Faculty With First-Year Students and Incentivizing

Quality Teaching

There is a growing realization among postsecondary institutions that the fi rst-year experience 

is critical in motivating and determining student progress. At Alverno College (Milwaukee) and 

Trinity Washington University (Washington, D.C.) experienced faculty members are selected to 

teach lower division and general education courses in ways that engage students from the 

beginning of their entrance into college. Alverno has developed a freshman seminar sequence 

of two courses, entitled Ways of Knowing, for students who have been identifi ed as at risk 

based on a placement assessment. During the course, students are connected with library 

staff, business and fi nancial aid representatives, and advising staff. A centerpiece of General 

Education at Trinity Washington University is the learning community, a discipline-based 

course in which the faculty member is also the advisor for all students in the class. Students 

participate in an off-campus practical experience related to the instructional objectives that 

is designed by the faculty member and supported with resources from the University. Both 

institutions report that these programs demonstrate a positive impact on retention. 

At Alverno College and Trinity Washington University faculty are encouraged to have a special focus 

on teaching, an emphasis that is codifi ed in criteria used for tenure and promotion. At Alverno, 

the criteria for teaching at the rank of associate professor are clearly articulated in the faculty 

handbook and include understanding developmental learning theories, fl exibility in using different 

modes of assessment and adapting to meet individual student learning needs. Trinity rewards 

faculty engagement in research but also pedagogic innovation. For tenure and promotion reviews, 

the institution privileges the “scholarship of teaching” equally with scholarship in a specifi c discipline.
Advising That Comes to the Student

At Western Governors University (WGU), students work with dedicated mentors from the time of 

their initial enrollment until their graduation. As faculty, mentors provide academic guidance 

and work in close partnership with the students they serve. WGU students describe their 

relationships with their mentors as highly personalized and frequently report that mentors 

help them to address personal challenges that might otherwise create roadblocks to their 

academic success. WGU mentors support students using an aggressive communication plan, 

connecting for weekly phone-based appointments that average 30 minutes per call and 

responding to email communication within one business day (Bettinger and Baker, 2011). 
Collaboration Among Offi ces

Collaboration between faculty and other campus offi ces, especially student affairs, is key to 

increasing student success. Developing and institutionalizing these relationships are critical. 

Working together to create integrated systems and policies that promote student success 

contributes to the effectiveness of campus efforts in promoting completion. Knowing the 

resources that are available, which are often in the student affairs division, and how best to direct 

students to those resources, allow faculty to play a more effective role in the student support 

system. In addition, advisers, coaches and mentors sometimes know that students are having 

academic problems before faculty members and can be effective in relaying concerns and early 

warnings. Encouraging frequent and ongoing collaboration between and among these units 

builds relationships, which lead to information sharing that can positively impact student success.
faculty, students, or sta& in advising and coaching roles, training and development are essential to 

their e& ectiveness. No matter the model, the person delivering the service is the essential point of 

e&ectiveness. It is also critical that faculty remain engaged in key roles that support students outside 

as well as within the classroom.

More and more institutions are utilizing technological systems that increase the availability of 

personalized real‐time data, which can provide advisers and coaches with early alerts that o&er 

opportunities to address academic issues in a timely way. Such information also can be utilized to 

give instant positive feedback to students who are improving or doing well.

Ensuring that advising on a campus matches student needs requires asking, “What should e& ective 

advising look like on our campus?” Whatever the approach, institutions must ask who is being served 

and how best they can be supported within the institutional culture.

15

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

The Effects of College Coaching

Cost-effi cient forms of active advising/coaching show positive results.

Program Traits • Trained coaches engage students through structured weekly one-on-one 

phone meetings, with additional contact via text and email messages

• Coaches probe and assess potential obstacles (more than just asking) 

and develop a plan for success (proactive)

• Coaches leverage existing campus resources to help students address 

problems/challenges

• Coaching offered for six to 12 months

Target Population 13,000 students from eight universities (public, private, for profi t) across 17 

sites between 2003–04 and 2007–08 academic years

Cost $500 per student, per semester; more cost-effective than increased fi nancial aid

Outcomes • Coached students’ retention rate 12 percent higher than the control 

group after 12 months.

• impact persisted beyond the six-to-12 month coaching period; the 

retention rate of coached students was 14 percent higher than noncoached students after 24 months.

• Effects on male retention almost 22 percent (twice the size of effects on 

females).

• For the three campuses with available data, graduation rates increased 

for coached students by 13 percent.

Source: Bettinger. and Baker, 2011
19

Tools to Develop Pathways and Track Progress

Institutions are creating and employing various tools to facilitate the development of student 

pathways and to track student progress. At Valencia College, students are encouraged to 

develop a plan through the college’s LifeMap tool, which focuses on the student’s academic, 

professional, and personal goals. It is designed to encourage students to think about these 

issues from the moment they fi rst enroll and throughout their progress to graduation. There are 

fi ve main stages in the student’s progress that are addressed by LifeMap:

1. college transition;

2. introduction to college;

3. progression to degree;

4. graduation transition; and

5. lifelong learning.

LifeMap provides a visual whereby students can track progress toward completing their 

academic plans. In addition, it helps advisers understand and support students as they 

advance. LifeMap is online and accessible to students and advisers at all times.

LifeMap (developed 

by Valencia College) 

helps a student plan 

and monitor his or her 

academic pathway.

Symposium Observations

“Students faced with a bu&et of courses are often overwhelmed by the 

choices. ! ere should be intensive advising to help students choose 

programs, not individual courses.” 

—Stan Jones, Complete College America
Cohort Structure and Support

Cohort programs of study offered at many institutions can provide structure and support in 

ways that advance student progress. Pellissippi State Community College offers cohort-based 

programs that provide students with structured environments to promote their success. Students 

take courses together with a consistent set of peers, who stay with them throughout their studies. 

The course sequences are prearranged and students have a clear sense of their pathway when 

they enroll. Pellissippi State notes that the relationships formed among students often bind 

them together and make it more likely that they will complete their course sequences.

Students who want to enroll in a cohort-based program retain the fl exibility to choose from various 

options, including majors and time-to-degree. For example, Pellissippi students in some associate 

degree programs can choose between a traditional or an accelerated pace. The Accelerated 

Higher Education Associate’s Degree (AHEAD), has block scheduling and a common cohort 

experience, providing students with structure designed to increase student success.
Cohort Structure and Support

Cohort programs of study offered at many institutions can provide structure and support in 

ways that advance student progress. Pellissippi State Community College offers cohort-based 

programs that provide students with structured environments to promote their success. Students 

take courses together with a consistent set of peers, who stay with them throughout their studies. 

The course sequences are prearranged and students have a clear sense of their pathway when 

they enroll. Pellissippi State notes that the relationships formed among students often bind 

them together and make it more likely that they will complete their course sequences.

Students who want to enroll in a cohort-based program retain the fl exibility to choose from various 

options, including majors and time-to-degree. For example, Pellissippi students in some associate 

degree programs can choose between a traditional or an accelerated pace. The Accelerated 

Higher Education Associate’s Degree (AHEAD), has block scheduling and a common cohort 

experience, providing students with structure designed to increase student success.
19

Tools to Develop Pathways and Track Progress

Institutions are creating and employing various tools to facilitate the development of student 

pathways and to track student progress. At Valencia College, students are encouraged to 

develop a plan through the college’s LifeMap tool, which focuses on the student’s academic, 

professional, and personal goals. It is designed to encourage students to think about these 

issues from the moment they fi rst enroll and throughout their progress to graduation. There are 

fi ve main stages in the student’s progress that are addressed by LifeMap:

1. college transition;

2. introduction to college;

3. progression to degree;

4. graduation transition; and

5. lifelong learning.

LifeMap provides a visual whereby students can track progress toward completing their 

academic plans. In addition, it helps advisers understand and support students as they 

advance. LifeMap is online and accessible to students and advisers at all times.

LifeMap (developed 

by Valencia College) 

helps a student plan 

and monitor his or her 

academic pathway.

Symposium Observations

“Students faced with a bu&et of courses are often overwhelmed by the 

choices. ! ere should be intensive advising to help students choose 

programs, not individual courses.” 

—Stan Jones, Complete College America
faculty, students, or sta& in advising and coaching roles, training and development are essential to 

their e& ectiveness. No matter the model, the person delivering the service is the essential point of 

e&ectiveness. It is also critical that faculty remain engaged in key roles that support students outside 

as well as within the classroom.

More and more institutions are utilizing technological systems that increase the availability of 

personalized real‐time data, which can provide advisers and coaches with early alerts that o&er 

opportunities to address academic issues in a timely way. Such information also can be utilized to 

give instant positive feedback to students who are improving or doing well.

Ensuring that advising on a campus matches student needs requires asking, “What should e& ective 

advising look like on our campus?” Whatever the approach, institutions must ask who is being served 

and how best they can be supported within the institutional culture.

15

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

The Effects of College Coaching

Cost-effi cient forms of active advising/coaching show positive results.

Program Traits • Trained coaches engage students through structured weekly one-on-one 

phone meetings, with additional contact via text and email messages

• Coaches probe and assess potential obstacles (more than just asking) 

and develop a plan for success (proactive)

• Coaches leverage existing campus resources to help students address 

problems/challenges

• Coaching offered for six to 12 months

Target Population 13,000 students from eight universities (public, private, for profi t) across 17 

sites between 2003–04 and 2007–08 academic years

Cost $500 per student, per semester; more cost-effective than increased fi nancial aid

Outcomes • Coached students’ retention rate 12 percent higher than the control 

group after 12 months.

• impact persisted beyond the six-to-12 month coaching period; the 

retention rate of coached students was 14 percent higher than noncoached students after 24 months.

• Effects on male retention almost 22 percent (twice the size of effects on 

females).

• For the three campuses with available data, graduation rates increased 

for coached students by 13 percent.

Source: Bettinger. and Baker, 2011
Collaboration Among Offi ces

Collaboration between faculty and other campus offi ces, especially student affairs, is key to 

increasing student success. Developing and institutionalizing these relationships are critical. 

Working together to create integrated systems and policies that promote student success 

contributes to the effectiveness of campus efforts in promoting completion. Knowing the 

resources that are available, which are often in the student affairs division, and how best to direct 

students to those resources, allow faculty to play a more effective role in the student support 

system. In addition, advisers, coaches and mentors sometimes know that students are having 

academic problems before faculty members and can be effective in relaying concerns and early 

warnings. Encouraging frequent and ongoing collaboration between and among these units 

builds relationships, which lead to information sharing that can positively impact student success.
Advising That Comes to the Student

At Western Governors University (WGU), students work with dedicated mentors from the time of 

their initial enrollment until their graduation. As faculty, mentors provide academic guidance 

and work in close partnership with the students they serve. WGU students describe their 

relationships with their mentors as highly personalized and frequently report that mentors 

help them to address personal challenges that might otherwise create roadblocks to their 

academic success. WGU mentors support students using an aggressive communication plan, 

connecting for weekly phone-based appointments that average 30 minutes per call and 

responding to email communication within one business day (Bettinger and Baker, 2011). 
23

teachers are assigned and rewarded for teaching the gatekeeper and developmental courses that are so 

important for students in their early experiences of college.

Engaging Faculty With First-Year Students and Incentivizing

Quality Teaching

There is a growing realization among postsecondary institutions that the fi rst-year experience 

is critical in motivating and determining student progress. At Alverno College (Milwaukee) and 

Trinity Washington University (Washington, D.C.) experienced faculty members are selected to 

teach lower division and general education courses in ways that engage students from the 

beginning of their entrance into college. Alverno has developed a freshman seminar sequence 

of two courses, entitled Ways of Knowing, for students who have been identifi ed as at risk 

based on a placement assessment. During the course, students are connected with library 

staff, business and fi nancial aid representatives, and advising staff. A centerpiece of General 

Education at Trinity Washington University is the learning community, a discipline-based 

course in which the faculty member is also the advisor for all students in the class. Students 

participate in an off-campus practical experience related to the instructional objectives that 

is designed by the faculty member and supported with resources from the University. Both 

institutions report that these programs demonstrate a positive impact on retention. 

At Alverno College and Trinity Washington University faculty are encouraged to have a special focus 

on teaching, an emphasis that is codifi ed in criteria used for tenure and promotion. At Alverno, 

the criteria for teaching at the rank of associate professor are clearly articulated in the faculty 

handbook and include understanding developmental learning theories, fl exibility in using different 

modes of assessment and adapting to meet individual student learning needs. Trinity rewards 

faculty engagement in research but also pedagogic innovation. For tenure and promotion reviews, 

the institution privileges the “scholarship of teaching” equally with scholarship in a specifi c discipline.
11

In considering these models, there is no one size ! ts all for institutions nor for students. Each institution 

needs to consider which strategies for transforming developmental education are most e&ective with 

its students and contribute to an integrated campuswide strategy for advancing student success.

Often assessments and placement tests do not precisely predict students’ developmental needs nor target 

speci! c areas in need of learning. Other measures of student readiness, such as high school grades and 

conversations with academic advisers, can o&er additional and valuable information regarding the best strategy 

for a student whose score on the placement test is near the cuto& for developmental education. Students should 

be informed of the high stakes associated with these tests and encouraged to prepare by focusing on important 

concepts. Assessments should be targeted and should identify the speci! c areas needing attention in order to be 

prepared for college work. For example, if a student is de! cient in certain math concepts, he or she can engage 

in developing skills on fractions and/or quadratic equations, rather than be deterred by a semester‐long math 

course that repeats other information the student already knows (Hughes and Scott‐Clayton, 2011).

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

The Texas Developmental Summer Bridge Study

Bridge programs can help provide structure and support to facilitate college entrance. 

Course-based programs may be more effective than freestanding programs.

Program Traits • Summer bridge programs held four to fi ve weeks prior to the start of college

• Accelerated instruction in developmental math, English, and/or reading 

(64–100 hrs.)

• Provided academic and student services support (e.g. tutors, labs, etc.)

• “College Knowledge” course (including study skills, making goals, and 

paying for college)

• $400 stipend for completers

Target Population Recent high school graduates—84 percent Hispanic, 62 percent female, 

and 61 percent low-income

Where Eight open access institutions in Texas (included six community colleges 

and two four-year schools )

Cost ≈ $800–$2,300 per student (varied by intensity and extent of implementation)

Outcomes • Summer bridge programs did not have an effect on the likelihood of enrollment

• Programs helped students pass college-level math (doubled) and writing 

(fi ve percent increase)

• Programs that were course-based were more effective than freestanding 

programs

Source: Wathington, et al., 2011. 
25

Conclusion

# is Evidence Meets Practice guide is designed to spark conversation and action among postsecondary 

education leaders and practitioners. # e lessons shared throughout this guide rest on the 

fundamental underpinning identi! ed by the participants at the Evidence-Action-Innovation 

symposium that major increases in completion rates require an integrated, sustained and systemic 

approach. Isolated programmatic e& orts, no matter how well designed and implemented, do not 

have a lasting impact. # is guide identi! es four strategies for discussion and potential adoption 

and/or adaptation. It also encourages conversations about other strategies that work for students. 

Ultimately, it is meant to be a guide for discussion and, hopefully, action that leads to successful 

practice (see Appendix 2, “Discussion Guide”).

# e strategies advanced in this Evidence Meets Practice guide emerged from a gathering of more than 

55 leading researchers, practitioners, policy experts, and national organizations at the EvidenceAction-Innovation Symposium that the Department of Education convened on Jan.30, 2012. # e 

overarching theme that emerged from the symposium is that long-term improvements in student 

success can only be attained through integrated and sustained strategies and programs that are part of 

a systematic plan and, ultimately, are supported by an institutional culture. # e college president and 

other senior leaders are key to creating, sustaining, and institutionalizing such a culture. 

“For us to reach President Obama’s goal of leading the world in college 

graduation again by 2020, we cannot continue to do business as usual. 

We think that the good ideas are out there with you, not with us here in 

Washington. I feel a huge sense of urgency, but also opportunity, as I travel 

the country and talk to hundreds of folks at universities, colleges, community 

colleges, and elsewhere. # ere is a huge amount of creativity and innovation 

going on. We hope that we can reach students at universities with what is 

working to eventually dramatically change the prospects for graduation for 

the students coming out of our institutions.”

—Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education

Jan. 30, 2012, Evidence -Action- Innovation Symposium, Washington, D.C.
Often assessments and placement tests do not precisely predict students’ developmental 

needs nor target specifi c areas in need of learning. Other measures of student readiness, such 

as high school grades and conversations with academic advisers, can offer additional and 

valuable information regarding the best strategy for a student whose score on the placement 

test is near the cutoff for developmental education.
27

References

Bailey, T. (2008). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental 

education in community college. Columbia University, Community College Research Center 

Working Paper No. 14.

Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education Pays 2010: ! e Bene" ts of Higher Education for 

Individuals and Society. New York: College Board.

Bettinger, E. & Baker, R. (2011). ! e e&ects of student coaching in college: An evaluation of a randomized 

experiment in student mentoring. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No.16881.

Bragg, D. D., Baker, E. D., & Puryear, M. (2010, December). 2010 follow‐up of Community College 

of Denver FastStart program. Champaign: University of Illinois, O"ce of Community College 

Research and Leadership.

Carnevale, A., Smith, N. & Strohl, J. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements 

! rough 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

Edgecombe, N. (2011). Accelerating the Academic Achievement of Students Referred to Developmental 

Education. Columbia University, Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 30.

Hughes, K. L. & Scott‐Clayton, J. (2011). Assessing Developmental Assessment in Community Colleges. 

Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 19.

Jaggars, S. (2012). Acceleration research. Presentation at the National Center for Postsecondary Research 

Conference on Developmental Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Jenkins, D., Speroni, C., Bel! eld, C., Jaggars, S. S., & Edgecombe, N. (2010). A model for accelerating 

academic success of community college remedial English students: Is the Accelerated Learning Program 

(ALP) e& ective and a& ordable? Columbia University, Community College Research Center Working 

Paper No. 21.
7

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

The Learning Communities Demonstration

A study of learning communities indicates that successful ones require institutional 

coordination and support.

Learning 

Community Traits

Learning communities consist of 

• Students enroll in two or more classes together

• Instructors collaborate on curriculum and in providing student support

• Course curricula are integrated (e.g. joint syllabi, assignments, etc.)

• Enhanced academic support and/or counseling is provided

Target Population First-time community college students who assess into developmental math, 

English, or reading classes

Where Community Colleges in Md., Fla., Texas, N.Y., and Calif. 

Cost ≈$500 per student

Outcomes Students who participated in the Kingsborough Community College (NY) 

program demonstrated effects six years after entering the program:

• Earned more credits

• Were more likely to persist

• Were 4.5 percent more likely to graduate

Source: Visher, et al., 2010.

Symposium Observations

“People want a silver bullet, but it takes a lot of integrated changes to 

have an impact.”

—Sylvia Hurtado, University of California, Los Angeles

“We need to move beyond a view of reform based on individual 

programs. We should be more ambitious about the types of reforms that 

combine various elements.”

—Tom Bailey, Columbia University
29

Appendix 1: Symposium 

Participants, Steering Committee, 

Facilitators, and Recorders

Participants: Researchers, Practitioners, and Policy Experts

David Arendale, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota

# omas Bailey, Director, Community College Research Center, Columbia University

Regina Bain, Regional Vice President, Posse Foundation

Earnestine Baker, Executive Director, Meyerho& Scholars Program, University of Maryland—

Baltimore County

Eric Bettinger, Associate Professor, Stanford University

Ari Blum, Chief Executive O"cer, InsideTrack

Karen Borglum, Assistant Vice President for Curriculum & Articulation, Valencia College

Debra Bragg, Professor & Director, O"ce of Community College Research and Leadership, 

University of Illinois

Tom Brock, Director, Young Adults and Postsecondary Education, MDRC

Luzelma Canales, Associate Dean of Community Engagement and Workforce Development, South 

Texas College

Elizabeth Child, Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, Trinity Washington University

Vickie Choitz, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Law and Social Policy 

Michelle Cooper, President, Institute for Higher Education Policy

Rebecca Cox, Associate Professor, Seton Hall University

Terrance Curran, Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management, University of North 

Carolina‐Wilmington

Chad Dull, Dean, Instructional Support Services, Western Technical College

Ricardo Estrada, Vice President for Education and Programs, Instituto Del Progreso Latino

Luis Ricardo Fraga, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement, University of Washington

Marybeth Gasman, Professor, University of Pennsylvania

Antoine Garibaldi, President, University of Detroit Mercy

Judy Gosch, Director of Curriculum and New Program Development, Pellissippi State Community College

Sylvia Hurtado, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles

Stan Jones, President, Complete College America

Donna Linderman, Director, ASAP, City University of New York

Bridget Terry Long, Professor, Harvard University
5

Integrating and Sustaining 

Student Supports

While many student support programs hold promise for increasing 

student success and completion, the researchers and practitioners 

at the symposium concluded that the essential key to ensuring longterm impact is that programs must be integrated and sustained.

Good programs have often been designed as individual islands of student support that are not 

integrated with other resources for students. Short‐term programs—even those with evidence 

of success—often see their long‐term impact reduced when they are not followed by consistent 

interventions and embedded in an institutional culture that is directed toward student success. A 

coherent and systemic institutional plan to integrate and sustain programs is vital.

Such systemic change requires the participation and ownership of faculty and sta& across the 

institution, as well as leaders whose common vision drives a culture focused on student success. Rarely 

can an e&ort to signi! cantly improve success across an organization be initiated by a single unit.

To be truly e&ective, institutional plans 

must reach more than a small segment of 

the student body. Designing an institutional 

strategy around “boutique” programs that 

only reach a small number of students may 

impact their lives and success. However, 

if these programs are not scaled on an 

institutional level, there is little potential for 

increasing completion success for all students.

Integrated – Student supports (e.g., bridge 

programs, learning communities) should be 

integrated and mutually reinforcing.

Sustained – One-semester programs are 

not enough; sustained support should be 

provided through additional programs 

and continual interventions.

Systemic – Integrated and sustained 

supports must be rooted in a systemic plan 

focused on creating a culture that drives 

student success.
31

Department of Education Steering Committee

David Bergeron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning and Innovation, O"ce of 

Postsecondary Education

Archie Cubarrubia, Education Statistician, National Center for Education Statistics

Brandon Daniels, Education Research Analyst, O"ce of Postsecondary Education

Robert Gomez, Higher Education and Youth Liaison, O"ce of Communications and Outreach

Karen Gross, Senior Policy Advisor, O"ce of the Under Secretary

Sue Liu, Senior Policy Advisor, O"ce of Vocational and Adult Education

Ben Miller, Policy Advisor, O"ce of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

Rosemarie Nassif, Special Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education, O"ce of 

Postsecondary Education

KimOanh Nguyen‐Lam, International and Foreign Language Education Program Director, O"ce 

of Postsecondary Education

Jon O’Bergh, Senior Policy Advisor, O"ce of the Under Secretary

Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary, O" ce of Postsecondary Education

Steve Pappas, Senior Policy Advisor, O"ce of Postsecondary Education

José Rico, Executive Director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics 

Debra Saunders‐White, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs, O"ce of 

Postsecondary Education

Alisha Scruggs, Management and Program Analyst, O"ce of Elementary and Secondary Education

Marcia Silverberg, Economist, Institute of Education Sciences

David Soo, Policy Analyst and Presidential Management Fellow, O" ce of Postsecondary Education

Brenda Wensil, Chief Customer Experience O" cer, Federal Student Aid

John Silvanus Wilson, Executive Director, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities

Facilitators

# omas Bailey, Professor, Community College Research Center, Columbia University

# omas Brock, Director, Young Adults and Postsecondary Education, MDRC

Bridget Terry Long, Professor, Harvard University

LaShawn Richburg‐Hayes, Deputy Director, Young Adults and Postsecondary Education, MDRC

Stefanie Schmidt, Education Statistician, Institute of Education Sciences

Marcia Silverberg, Economist, Institute of Education Sciences

Mary Visher, Senior Associate, Young Adults and Postsecondary Education, MDRC
3

strategies, resources, and technical assistance tools that promote access, quality, and completion for adult students 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2012). On Jan. 30, 2012, Secretary Duncan addressed the Evidence‐ActionInnovation College Completion Symposium, which convened leading researchers, successful practitioners, 

and policy experts (see list in Appendix 1) for a day of engaged dialogue about what institutions can do to 

increase college completion. # ey came with a singular mission: to consider what works and what does not work. 

# eir task was to integrate evidence with practice. Although there are myriad forces that contribute to college 

completion, the focus of their agenda was on student supports, including bridge programs, learning communities, 

developmental education, and advising, coaching, and mentoring. # e evidence presented by the researchers 

was vetted in rich roundtable discussions with practitioners, other researchers, and policy experts identifying how 

practice and research inform each other, resulting in a deeper understanding of what really matters for students. 

# is Evidence Meets Practice guide is a summary of the major lessons learned through their interchange.

Findings

Sustained. Integrated. Systemic. E&orts to promote student success must be integrated and 

sustained, rather than isolated or short-term. # roughout the symposium, these themes were 

repeated continually and from di&erent perspectives. Supporting students in achieving their goals 

requires intentionally implementing strategies and practices in an integrated and sustained way. 

# e overarching message was that sustained and integrated e& orts must originate from a systemic 

approach that ultimately drives the culture itself. Transformative change that has lasting results 

is rooted in a culture that is focused on student success. # e overall underpinning of this guide, 

therefore, is “Integrating and Sustaining Student Supports.” 

“When I led Chicago public schools, we were trying to signi! cantly increase 

graduation rates and make sure our graduates were going to college and ultimately 

completing. As we really started to track the data, it was fascinating to me . ... We had 

students with almost identical pro! les, very similar grades and very similar SAT 

[and] ACT scores, having radically di"erent outcomes with our local universities. 

Not like a 5–10 percent di"erence, but [for students with the] same pro! le, in 

one university 75 percent would graduate in ! ve years and [in another university 

the ! ve-year rate would be] 30 to 35 percent ... literally doubling the rate of the 

possibility of graduation. So, something di"erent was going on in the culture around 

support, around bridge programs, around mentoring that created an environment 

and a climate of structure that gave people who were absolutely at risk coming in 

much, much better odds for graduating.”

—Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education

Jan. 30, 2012, Evidence -Action- Innovation Symposium, Washington, D.C.
33

Appendix 2: Discussion Guide 

Conversations at the institutional level will assist in discerning the 

most relevant or promising approaches for different campuses. 

Senior leaders and other key personnel can convene to discuss the 

strategies presented in this guide as well as explore other strategies 

that their institution can implement in each of these areas to 

advance student success. The questions below are intended to 

serve as starting points for such conversations.

Integrating and Sustaining Student Supports

• How are individual support programs integrated into an overall systemic plan?

• Since research indicates that the positive impacts of support programs often dissipate without 

follow‐up programming, how can your institution develop a systemic model that integrates 

support throughout a student’s enrollment?

• Are there programs or initiatives on your campus that can be scaled to provide opportunities for 

greater numbers of students?

• What can senior leaders do to drive systemic change and empower those across campus to 

champion student success?

• How and to what extent is your institution’s unique mission and history re$ ected in your 

student support programs and in your overall campuswide plan?

Strategy 1: Transform Developmental Education

• How can developmental courses be transformed to maximize student success?

• Are there ways to accelerate student completion of developmental coursework?

• Would upward placement work as an e&ective strategy on your campus?

• What approaches are used or can be used for students who are enrolled in developmental 

courses to promote their sense of being “authentic” college students?
1

Introduction

# is Evidence Meets Practice guide is a summary of the lessons learned at the Evidence‐Action‐

Innovation College Completion Symposium convened by the U.S. Department of Education on Jan. 

30, 2012. # ese ! ndings emerged from conversations among researchers, postsecondary education 

practitioners, and policy experts. # e institutional examples cited were either the focus of the 

research or mentioned during the round table discussions and/or large group report outs.

The National Imperative—Meeting the 2020 Goal 

In February 2009, in an address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama posed a vision for 

the United States that has caught national attention and momentum: “By 2020, America will once 

again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” According to the Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) most recent data on the percentage of 

25–34 year olds who have an associate degree or higher, the U.S. is number 14 among the 37 nations 

represented, at 42 percent (OECD, 2012). To achieve the president’s 2020 goal, the nation needs 10 

million additional college graduates from community colleges, four‐year colleges, and universities. 

If current trends continue, there will be 2 million more graduates by 2020—8 million short of our 

goal. # is is an aggressive mandate for postsecondary education in the midst of deep and pervasive 

challenges. It is the role of institutions, states, the federal government, and all postsecondary 

education stakeholders to address the challenges and collaborate to achieve this goal.
35

Appendix 3: Selected 

Department of Education 

Resources

The Department of Education offers many resources in addition 

to this guide that help institutions better understand and address 

the challenges of improving college completion, including grant 

opportunities to fund promising programs and research and data 

that evaluate and monitor practices and institutional progress. 

Below are some of the Department of Education’s grant programs, 

research and statistics offi ces, White House initiatives as well as 

websites and publications that inform completion efforts.

Offi ce of Postsecondary Education Grant Programs

Student Support Services program competitively awards funds to institutions of higher education 

to provide opportunities for academic development, assist students with basic college requirements, 

and motivate students toward the successful completion of their postsecondary education. Activities 

include academic tutoring, assistance with course selection and ! nancial aid applications, mentoring, 

! nancial literacy education, and individualized personal, academic, and career counseling.

Webssite: http://www.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/index.html

Strengthening Institutions Program helps eligible institutions become self‐su"cient and expand their 

capacity to serve low‐income students by providing competitive funds to improve and strengthen the 

academic quality, institutional management, and ! scal stability of eligible institutions. Activities may 

include student service programs intended to improve academic success, such as innovative, customized, 

instruction courses designed to help retain and advance students rapidly into core courses that may 

include developmental education and English language instruction, and through program completion.

Website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/iduestitle3a/index.html
# is report was produced under U.S. Department of Education contract number ED-OPE-12-P-0031 with 

Isom Global Strategies. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations in this report does 

not imply endorsement by the U.S. government. # is publication also contains URLs for information, created 

and maintained by private organizations. # is information is provided for the reader’s convenience. # e U.S. 

Department of Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, 

or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of information or URLs does not re$ ect the 

importance of the organization, nor is it intended to endorse information, products, services or any views expressed. 

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan 

Secretary of Education 

Martha Kanter

Under Secretary of Education 

O! ce of Postsecondary Education

David Bergeron

Acting Assistant Secretary 

# is report is in the public domain, except for the cover photograph, which is used with permission. 

Authorization to reproduce this report in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this report 

is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, O" ce of Postsecondary Education, 

Evidence Meets Practice: Institutional Strategies to Increase College Completion, Washington, D.C., 2012. 

To order copies of this report, 

Write to: ED Pubs, Education Publication Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, 

Alexandria, VA 22304; 

or fax your request to: 703-605-6794; 

or e-mail your requests to: edpubs@edpubs.ed.gov; 

or call in your request toll free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). # ose who use a telecommunication 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-877-576-7734. If 877 service is not yet 

available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 or 1-800-USA-LEARN (TTY: 1-800-437-0833); 

or order online at: http://www.edpubs.gov. 

# is report is also available on the Department’s website at: http://www.ed.gov and 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/o" ces/list/ope/index.html

November 2012 
37

White House Initiatives

White House Initiatives conduct targeted outreach and provide technical assistance to support 

student success within communities that are critical to increasing completion rates across the nation.

• White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Paci! c Islanders

• White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics 

• White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

• White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education

• White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans

• White House O" ce of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Website: http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/index.html

Request for Information

Request for Information, entitled “Promising and Practical Strategies to Increase Postsecondary 

Success,” requests submissions from institutions, states, systems of higher education, adult 

education providers, researchers, and other nonpro! t organizations regarding promising and 

practical strategies, practices, programs and activities that contribute to increased rates of 

postsecondary success. # e results of the ! rst round of submissions received by April 30, 2012 can 

be viewed at http://www.ed.gov/college-completion. # e Federal Register Second Notice Request 

for Information was published on Sept. 12, 2012. # e review of the second round submissions 

will include those received by Nov. 30, 2012. For more information contact Frederick Winter 

(frederick.winter@ed.gov).

! e Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov